Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Supported by

2008: Debates and Cover Stories

By Kate Phillips September 10, 2007 9:37 amSeptember 10, 2007 9:37 am

Attention today will be mainly focused on Capitol Hill, where Gen. David Petraeus is testifying about whether the president’s troop buildup plan is working. You can expect the 2008 candidate field — on the Democratic and Republican sides — to weigh in as the week goes on, especially with the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks as a backdrop.

The war in Iraq did occupy some of the Democrats’ time Sunday night, as they participated in yet another debate, this time at the University of Miami sponsored by the Hispanic cable network Univision. Several of the candidates offered up their views on the state of war and progress in Iraq, but the debate also highlighted issues of immigration and border security. Former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, for one, called this week’s White House report on the war “a sales job.”

The Miami Herald emphasized that little ground was broken by the candidates, given that they all support an overhaul of immigration laws and that they spent quite a bit of time criticizing the Republican views on that issue.

You may recall that the Univision invitation to the G.O.P. field was accepted by only Senator John McCain, forcing the network to cancel a debate among Republicans.

The Wall Street Journal uses the event in Miami to explore the split in the city’s Little Havana, talking about Senator Barack Obama’s efforts to build support there for his proposals to relax relations with Cuba.

Six years after the terrorist attacks, several of the candidates have been careful to mark the anniversary tomorrow without trying to politicize it. That’s proving to be a pretty tough measurement, especially for Rudy Giuliani, the former Mayor of New York City, who tries to broaden his record on leadership beyond that day but rarely fails to mention his personal account of living through it on the campaign trail, writes The Times’s Marc Santora.

Another announcement today will provide yet more of a challenge for the national G.O.P. as Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, announces that he’s retiring. The Omaha World-Herald previews the announcement and also provided mini-profiles of some of the familiar names eyeing a Senate bid, including the state’s former Senator Bob Kerrey on the Democratic side and former Gov. Mike Johanns on the Republican side.

Last week, former Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee was featured on the cover of Newsweek just before he officially announced his bid for the Republican nomination. The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz examines how Mr. Thompson’s decision to delay entering the race allowed the media to scrub and report his life story.

This week, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton gets the cover treatment by Newsweek. And she’s featured in the New Yorker’s piece by Ryan Lizza, who lays out the “legacy problem” she faces as she runs with the background issues of her husband’s two terms at the White House.

News organizations continue to mine the problems revealed with fundraising by fugitive Norman Hsu, a big Clinton and Democratic donor who is hospitalized in Colorado right now. The Los Angeles Times is reporting that the F.B.I. is looking into his investments.

For Mr. Edwards, investments of another kind continue to shadow his campaign. The State newspaper of South Carolina reported over the weekend that Green Tree Financial, one of the subsidiaries of Fortress Investments for which Mr. Edwards worked and with whom he had investments, has foreclosed on more than 100 homes in the state. The news follows reports of foreclosures in New Orleans in the post-Katrina era. The Democratic candidate’s campaign disavowed any connection to Green Tree, and emphasized his commitment to battling predatory lending practices.

The last general to give a similar report was General Westmoreland. Only now it is General Petraeus’ turn. What he will say has been the worse kept secret of the decade. We will be treated to another “light at the end of the tunnel, if only we had more men” speech. In Iraq, we have turned the corner so many times that we no longer know which way we are facing. Is there anyone who thinks he is going to be critical of his own strategy? Bush’s admiration of the military didn’t keep him from firing generals who disagreed with his war. More phoney baloney from the Administration. It is all they have left.

The “legacy problem” is a view that some of us Democrats hold, not just the vast right wing kill machine I hear so much about. Sorry, but your precious Hillary is clearly trying to exploit her husband’s presidency in an effort to foreshadow her own sketchy track record.

Newsweek’s cover story on Hillary had many points similar to the woman who wrote about her first Senate campaign: Every day Hillary prepares and then goes about her work in a very organized manner. The incredible loyalty of her staff is an aspect of her personality and management that’s seldom reported; it certainly compares favorably to what some of the GOP candidates have demonstrated. How many of us have had ineffective bosses from hell who couldn’t keep staff? The kindness she shows in reaching out to people on personal issues is another nice touch that most people wouldn’t expect from someone with her schedule or stature. It says something about her priorities and what really matters.

Those that claim that this is not Bush’s war – Please do read the ‘Authorization’ signed by most of the members of Congress and I believe backed by a majority of the American population at that time; it granted GW the power to use force to ensure Saddam complied with the UN requests to confirm non-existence of WMD’s ONLY AFTER ALL DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS HAD BEEN EXHAUSTED; also, the same document limited the condition to “defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq.”.

It is important to note that there is no mention of spreading Democracy, installing an elected government or mediating a civil war.

Depending on how you define “winning”, if the stated mission was to remove Saddam from power and neutralize the WMD’s if any, and if the aim included setting up an interim govm’t and hold elections; then we have already won and the mission can be considered accomplished. Therefore, based on this we should start re-deploying our troops.

Or on the other hand, if the aim was to eliminate terrorism, this was an un-winnable war from the beginning – as the reports note we have poured men and ordinance on the Iraq theater and yet we cannot claim to have eradicated terrorism nor does anyone believe we will ever be able to make such a claim. However, no one should assume that the military is failing to do so.

Terrorism cannot be addressed through military intervention. Granted surgical strikes to take out the leadership of such an organization will set them back a great deal, but most will have to agree that within a short time there will be another zealot to take the leader role and the cycle will start anew.

The best minds in our intelligence agencies concur that the most effective way to deal with terrorism is through international sharing of information (this requires trust) and solid police work (brings to mind the proposal by John Edwards a couple of days ago). The best example of this is evidenced by the British / IRA conflict – the occupation of northern Ireland by British troops did nothing to stem the bombing attacks by the IRA and in fact the presence of the British troops on Irish soil served as an excellent recruiting prop for the group. To boot, upon the removal of the troops, the IRA lost the wind in their sails and both recruitment and attacks ebbed and eventually led to talks and settlement within a surprisingly short time.

Likewise, as long as our troops are in Iraq they are viewed as an “occupying force” and will naturally create a ‘necessity’ for resistance which is the healthy reaction of any population upon the invasion of their country. The enlisted men and women risking their lives in Iraq deserve a fair hearing of the facts. The truth is that anyone who got shipped to Iraq (willingly or not), by reasons of self preservation had to adopt the mantle of serving a decent and higher purpose, otherwise, their sacrifice would feel either abused and misused OR risk feeling like thugs in a grab for someone else’s goods. I would venture that most opted for the first justification, the ones that went for the second justification wound up achieving notoriety at Abu Gharib and other sordid engagements.

The ideological rift surrounding our involvement in Iraq stems from the recognition of the real reasons we attacked and invaded a country which hindsight inspection of the facts shows: had not attacked us, had not declared war on us, did not harbor our declared enemies, did not have any WMD’s, had no nuclear fuel or atomic weapons program, had been inspected and certified by the UN inspectors, had agreed to let the UN inspectors back in to certify their compliance yet one more time, etc.

It is the realization that the means and reasons that got us into the mess really stink of falsehoods, greed and profiteering, cronyism, abuse of power, religious dogma and even a good amount of idiocy, leaves those that failed to think or question with the feeling of complicity in a sordid affair which we all wish to dissociate from.

Courting Cuban-American voters is a disservice to US foreign policy. I’ve been to Cuba and if one thing is clear, it is that without American hostility Castro would be only a memory-not a rallying point.

President Obama drew criticism on Thursday when he said, “we don’t have a strategy yet,” for military action against ISIS in Syria. Lawmakers will weigh in on Mr. Obama’s comments on the Sunday shows.Read more…